Drug Companies arbitrarily fix rates and when an indigenous manufacturer is ready to supply at a fraction of the cost, these Drug companies hide behind patents.

A sample.

”

India‘s patent appeals office has rejected Bayer AG‘s plea to stop the production of a cheaper generic version of a patented cancer drug in a ruling that health groups say is an important precedent for getting inexpensive lifesaving medicines to the poor.

Last year, India’s patent office allowed local drug manufacturer Natco Pharma Ltd. to produce a generic version of Bayer’s kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar on the grounds it would make the drug available to the public at a reasonably affordable price. It was the first use of compulsory licensing under Indian patent laws passed in 2005.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board rejected the German drug maker’s appeal of the 2012 ruling on Monday. It also ruled that under the license Natco must pay 7 per cent in royalties on net sales to Bayer.

Bayer sells a one month supply of the drug for about $5,600. Natco’s version would cost Indian patients $175 a month, less than 1/30th as much.

Western pharmaceutical companies have been pushing for stronger patent protections in India to regulate the country’s $26 billion US generics industry, which they say frequently flouts intellectual property rights. However, health activists and aid groups counter that Indian generics are a lifesaver for patients in poor countries who cannot afford Western prices to treat diseases such as cancer, malaria and HIV.

Bayer said Tuesday it “strongly” disagreed with the appeal panel’s decision and would pursue the case in the high court in India’s commercial capital Mumbai

A: Medicines produced by generic companies in India are among the cheapest in the world. That is because, until 2005, India did not grant patents on medicines. India is one of the few developing countries with production capacity to manufacture quality-assured generic medicines.

By producing cheaper generic versions of medicines that were patented in other countries, India became a key source of affordable medicines, such as antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) to treat HIV and AIDS. Eighty percent of the medicines MSF uses to treat 170,000 people living with HIV in its projects today are sourced from Indian generic drug companies, and over 80 percent of all HIV and AIDS medicines bought by donors also come from India. In the case of treatment for pediatric AIDS, Indian generic producers supply over 90 percent of medicines used in developing countries. This is why India is known as the “pharmacy of the developing world.”

Q: What is the relationship between patents and affordable medicines?

A: When a pharmaceutical company has a patent in a country, it means it has a monopoly in that country for a certain amount of time. This means it can prevent other companies from producing, selling, or importing the medicine in that country for the duration of the patent term, which, according to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, is a minimum of 20 years. This in turn allows companies to charge high prices because there are no competitors in the market.

In the absence of patents, multiple generic producers produce medicines, further driving the price down. Competition among different producers is the tried and tested way to bring prices down. Competition among generic manufacturers is what helped bring the cost of HIV and AIDS treatment down from over US$10,000 per patient per year in 2000 to $150 today. The absence of patents in India has also helped in the development of three-in-one HIV/AIDS medicines called fixed-dose combination pills, and formulations for children.

Q: Aren’t patents needed to stimulate innovation for new drugs by pharmaceutical companies?

A: An increasing number of studies have shown that while patent protection has increased over the last 20 years, the innovation rate has been falling, with an increase in the number of “me-too” drugs of little or no therapeutic gain. This undermines the case that is often made by the pharmaceutical industry that more patent protection would result in more investment in medical innovations.

A study published in 2005 concluded that 68 percent of the 3,096 new products approved in France between 1981 and 2004 brought “nothing new” over previously available preparations. Similarly, the British Medical Journal published a study rating barely 5 percent of all newly patented drugs in Canada as “breakthrough.” And a breakdown of over 1,000 new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1989 and 2000 revealed that over three quarters have no therapeutic benefit over existing products.

In addition, the 2006 report of the World Health Organization’s Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Public Health also found that there was no evidence that the implementation of WTO rules on patents in developing countries significantly boosts research and development in pharmaceuticals for diseases affecting developing countries.

Q: Does India not grant patents on medicines at all?

A: As a WTO member, India has to comply with trade rules set by the WTO. One of these is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, which obliges WTO member countries to grant patents on pharmaceuticals. To comply with this international obligation, India amended its patent law in 2005 and started to grant patents on medicines. As a result, when patents are granted in the country, Indian generic manufacturers are not able to produce cheaper generic versions of these medicines.”

I have a friend in Bangalore whose close relative is a distributor for Cancer drugs.

He sells a medicine at Rs 8000 to Patients ans he makes a profit of 22% if he sells it Rs.1800!

next time your Doctor recommends you a Cancr Drug, as him show the combination, check the information at the Link below and confront him to prescribe an an equivalent Indian Drug or ask him to give you details of other drugs available in the market.

Please remember these Drugs will not arrest Cancer immediately and you have some time to buy them.

Cancer Drugs.

‘

This list includes more than 100 cancer drug information summaries from NCI. The summaries provide consumer-friendly information about cancer drugs and drug combinations.

Summaries for individual cancer drugs cover the uses of these drugs, research results, possible side effects, approval information, and ongoing clinical trials. The list includes brand and generic names for the drugs.

Summaries for cancer drug combinations are listed by abbreviation or common name and are shown in capital letters. Each summary gives a list of the drugs that make up the combination and explains what the combination is used for. It also has links to summaries for individual drugs in the combination.

Drugs ,it is reported that , are not tested on children and are marketed.

The FDA is of the opinion that Clinical Trials of Drugs conducted on Children give off reliable results,especially the contra-indications.

I am reproducing a real instance quoted in The Scientist.

”

But the story of Paxil also illustrates the power of somewhat obscure laws that have saved children’s lives by changing the way drugmakers test their products.

Paxil—which increases extracellular levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin by inhibiting its reuptake into presynaptic cells—was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1992, and by 2000 it was making the drug company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) $2 billion per year. But around this time, problems with Paxil began to surface. Adult and adolescent patients were anecdotally reporting side effects, including sexual dysfunction, weight gain, high blood pressure, and increased suicidality—an uptick in thoughts of suicide or self-inflicted injury in some severely depressed patients. These reports of increased suicidality particularly worried pediatricians.

In 1999 the FDA sent GSK a letter requesting that the company conduct clinical trials of Paxil in children and adolescents. To sweeten the deal, the FDA offered GSK a 6-month marketing exclusivity extension for Paxil in return. This extension, which in effect would buy GSK 6 extra months of patent protection by delaying marketing of generic versions, was an incentive written into the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997.

GSK eventually agreed to conduct the requested studies and submitted the results to the FDA sometime in early 2002, after FDAMA had expired and been replaced by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) of 2002. Though GSK’s own reports on preliminary studies of Paxil in adolescents indicated that it was safe and more effective than a placebo—a heavily disputed interpretation contained in the article reporting the results of the now infamous study 3291—the FDA’s analyses of Paxil studies found that suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and episodes of self-harm were almost twice as high in young patients with major depressive disorder taking the drug than among those taking a placebo. To boot, the agency found that the drug was no more effective than placebo in treating major depression in children and adolescents”

Featured Comment

Legislators should remember who pays their salaries and to whom they are responsible. If taxpayers fund any part of a research activity then (a) no patents or copyrights should issue as a result, and (b) all results and unprocessed data should be available freely, similarly funded by the taxpayers. If the researchers and their sponsoring organizations don’t like the bargain, they should seek funding from non-public sources.tddial, Elsevier Abandons Anti-Open Access Bill“

Parkinson’s is one of the diseases for which Science has no real answer.

There is no case where such disease has been cured as in cancer.

As of now medicines that are available do not cure but definitely have serious side effects as in this case.

Pharma companies do not reveal details of Clinical trials where side effects are indicated.( please read my Blogs under Health).

Best preventive measures Healthy Food, adequate rest, least consumption of tobacco/liquor and avoidance of the habit of popping pills for slightest health problems.

Story:

A MARRIED dad is suing the makers of a drug he took for Parkinson’s disease, claiming it turned him into a psychotic gay sex addict.

Didier Jambart, 51, says the drastic side-effects also saw him start cross-dressing and get hooked on internet gambling.

He is demanding £400,000 damages from pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Requip, and his consultant.

Revealing his torment, the ex-bank worker and town councillor blames the drug for his three suicide attempts.

Soon after being prescribed the pills in 2003 his behaviour changed. But he said: “Then my neurologist increased the dose and I completely lost the plot. I stole bank cards from friends and used them to gamble. I also sold my children’s toys and I borrowed money. In total I lost between £60,000 to £90,000 online.”

The systematic scare that is being created makes one wonder whether these scares are a ploy to promote sales of these vaccines by the pharma companies, whether it be swine Flu,Avian Flu.Story:
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The flow of swine flu vaccines to the U.S. market is picking up, health and corporate officials said on Tuesday, and now the challenge will be to get the drugs to people.

[Comment posted 2009-08-07 05:36:23]
Referring to Bob’s statement on cost of medicine in health care, I
furnish statistics here below.
“Of each dollar spent on health care in the United States 31% goes to
hospital care, 21% goes to physician services, 10% to pharmaceuticals,
8% to nursing homes, 7% to administrative costs, and 23% to all other
categories (diagnostic laboratory services, pharmacies, medical device
manufacturers, etc.[7] Reports on the percentage of costs that go to
profits varies from 25-30%.”
(Linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Health_care_spending)

[Comment posted 2009-08-07 05:45:55]
I forgot to include Medicare budget in my comment.
‘national health spending totaling around $2.5 trillion in 2009, and
projected to grow to $4.4 trillion by
2018′,(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158463.php))
.14 trillion US $ is not a small amount in a budget of% 2.5 trillions.

Like this:

Meta

Copyright Notice

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to S.V.Ramanan and Ramani's Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Care has been taken, wherever materiel form other sources are quoted ,to provide a Link/Citation to the relevant Post.

If there is an omission , it is by oversight, and if brought to notice,Citation/Link will be provided

Disclaimer

Every Effort has been made by Ramani's blog to provide authentic, correct information.

However Ramani's Blog can not be held responsible for any dispute or losses arising out of the information including copy right contained in the blog,

You shall be using the information contained in the Blog at your risk.

Wherever out side information is used in the blog,proper information/Link is provided to the source.

If there is any omission, it is unintentional and if brought to notice, the oversight will be rectified by providing a Link to the source

Top Rated

Fair Use Notice.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

I make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to Hinduism civil rights, religious tolerance, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology,

I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.